The wolves beat the hunters in the recent, and highly contested, wolf and coyote derby in Salmon, Idaho. Wolves eluded the participants for the entire two-day hunt, but 21 coyotes were not so fortunate. The absence of any wolf kills, however, has not lessened the intensity of the controversy, nor the temperature of the debates. Wolves are a touchy subject, no matter the stance; as with most hotly contested issues, there is an abundance of information, but not all of it is correct.
So are the wolves predators that destroy livestock other wildlife, creating devastating losses for both ranchers and hunters? Or are they prey? Misunderstood, maligned and victimized only for what comes naturally to the species? Do wolves contribute significantly to the spread of parasites to elk and cattle, and can humans get these same parasites? Are the wolves found in the Idaho mountains the same wolves that were here before, or are these wolves truly different from the ones they replaced?
And the biggest question of all – can wolves, and humans get along?
These are not the same wolves who were here before.
This is really a trick statement, and the answer is not very straightforward. Yes, they are the same wolves who roamed the Idaho mountains in great numbers at one point in history, but at the same time, they’re not. The reason is they are both of the grey wolf species, but different subspecies. The former inhabitants were the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolves, or Canis lupus irremotus. These wolves are one of the largest subspecies of the grey wolves, weighing anywhere from 75 – 150 lbs., and standing at 26 – 32″.
When their numbers dwindled down to almost nonexistent, their cousins, the McKenzie Valley Wolves, were brought in as replacements. McKenzie Valley Wolves, also known as Canadian Timber Wolves, or by their subspecies of Canis lupus occidentalis, is the largest subspecies of grey wolf in the North American continent. They stand upwards of 35″ and can weigh as much as 170 lbs, though they average about 145 lbs. These wolves are the big kids.
Aside from the subspecies difference, it is very difficult to find unbiased comparisons between the two. Some will say that the latter is much more aggressive, much more prone to attack livestock, and much more likely to decimate wildlife herds. Wolf advocates say the fault lies with the ranchers and hunters who have forced the wolves out of their natural habitat, and really should expect no different. Searches across the internet reveal the same arguments, with no sign of common ground, and the common ground may be where the answer lies.
Regardless of whether the species is the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf or the McKenzie Valley Wolf, it is still a wolf. Both subspecies hunt the same food and have the same breeding habits, but one is slightly larger than the other. The reality is what now lives in Idaho’s back country is probably a hybrid of the two subspecies, and one which has adopted characteristics of both through genetic combinations. This is a theory, of course, because nothing substantial can be found to back the claim.
As for the aggressiveness; again, the answer most likely is in the center where neither side dares tread. Livestock does take up a lot of ground, and this ground is shared by the wolves, along with cougar, elk, deer, moose, coyote, fox and so on. To get a good feel for this, one only has to visit the open range areas of the South Hills – while nearly at the opposite end of the state, it is not uncommon to come across all of the above (except the wolves), and all standing on the road at one place or another. When domestic livestock encroach on ground usually occupied by wildlife, conflict is going to occur; unfortunately, a newborn calf or lamb is going to make a much easier catch than a full grown elk. This also means that a rancher feels the need to protect his or her herd from a very real threat.
While wolves do pose a threat to livestock, especially if ample wild game is not available, they do not seem to pose as big of a threat to humans. This is not to say that wolves will not attack humans, because they will, especially if threatened or provoked. However, a wolf attack is rarely fatal, and a person’s dog faces much more danger from a wolf than the person himself. In fact, a mountain lion poses more of a threat to a person.
Wolves spread parasites to deer, elk and cattle, and this parasite is dangerous to humans.
The parasite in question is Echinococcus granulosis. This parasitic tapeworm is one requiring two hosts to live. The life cycle of this parasite begins when a wolf, dog, coyote or fox eats an infected animal, such as a cow or an elk. The parasite then lives in the gut of the host animal, where it lays its eggs, which are then expelled through that animal’s feces. When the ungulate, such as a cow or an elk, ingests the feces through the normal act of grazing, then the cycle starts all over.
Human infection is extremely rare, and infection doesn’t come from eating meat from an infected animal, because humans are not a natural host to this parasite. If a person does become infected, Rover proves a much more likely culprit. Furthermore, wolves are not responsible for the introduction of this parasite; it was found in Idaho sheep sent to slaughter in California as early as 1969.
There is a second parasite, however, called Echinococcus multilocularis; this parasite constitutes a far more serious threat to people. There is no cure for human infection, and left untreated proves fatal. However, the main carrier of this parasite is not the wolf, but the red fox. And, just like other forms of cystic echinococcosis, man’s best friend is most likely the source of contamination.
The only good wolf is a dead wolf.
This claim by wolf opponents only serves to fuel the opposition. Before human intervention, wolves coexisted with bison and elk. The wolves killed to eat, and helped keep the populations of their prey in check. However, claims to land for both development and livestock limited the availability of both space and prey for the predators. Now, instead of a coexistence between people and wolves, there is constant conflict, ostensibly created by individuals who thought they knew what was best for both species.
Opponents call for the complete eradication of wolves while the advocates say the wolves are needed to balance the ecosystem. In Yellowstone, elk had grazed down much of the habitat, because there were not enough predators to balance the immense population. Now, wolves kill about 3,000 elk a year, and have redistributed the elk populations, which allows vegetation and habitat to regrow.
Wolves can bring financial incentive, as well. People love wolves; they are the animals of myth and legend, and are held dear to many Native American tribes. Wolf lovers come to the Lamar Valley to see the animals; estimates say the wolves generate as much as $35 million a year for local businesses.
This gives little consolation to ranchers who have lost cattle to the animals. To them, the wolves are a nuisance and detrimental to their livelihoods. The wolves put their livestock and pets at risk. The wolves threaten a way of life.
Can a balance be struck?
The wolves were here first, but people are here now. This leads to the question as to whether a balance can be struck between those who hate the wolves…and those who love them. It’s a tough call. Idaho’s wolf management programs have come under fire because of the seeming inability to adequately manage the wolf populations the impact to ranchers and hunters is minimized, but the wolves can still be wolves.
Not everyone in Idaho is against the wolves, either; nor do these people believe the wolves cannot coexist with the human populations. However, for any achievement of a middle ground, conversations need to happen, and an effective management system needs to be implemented – not just a “kill them all” or “let them all run free” stance.
Besides, if wolves were truly as dangerous as people make them out to be, they wouldn’t be so popular as pets; same with coyotes and fox. And, despite the rhetoric of “the wild animal will take over, and it will turn on you,” personal experience with the latter two proved quite the contrary; both were loving, loyal and gentle. Furthermore, as far as livestock is concerned, a pack of unkept dogs can do just as much damage, if not more, than any wild animal.
The truth is the battle is about far more than wolves; it is about a lack of discussion and understanding between two entities, both with strong convictions about what is right – for themselves, their families, their communities, and for the wolves. Considering the battle fought over one Wolf and Coyote Derby, that conversation is nowhere near happening.
Editorial by Heather Pilkinton
source
0 comments:
Post a Comment